ISAF Shark ATTACK Report 2022! 

It was Little Bay, a very active fishing spot. Even without chumming or bait, this means blood (from hooked fish) and lots of thrashing fish. Me and a Brit that I knew used to fish there. In one day we hooked two Port Jackson sharks that were so big they snapped the line and then landed a juvenile that was almost a meter long that we took pics with then threw him back. I've swum in the calm bay itself, up to my chest, but you couldn't pay me to swim out near the rocks where Simon was killed. Not even so much sharks, just waves dashing you on the rocks is scary enough.

My thought exactly 🤗

Same

Hal gets it.

I live Hal- Tack that up to another Attempted Predation!!🙂

Predictable - his opinion will break your brain

I don't agree with the provoked argument either. I wonder though if any fish had been caught there previous to the attack and whether struggling fish may have attracted the shark. Swimming where fishing takes place is dangerous, especially in a drop-off area like that.

According to Simon’s dive buddy (who’s a friend of mine), Simon did not know fishers were fishing there

@@SHARKBYTES I think it would horrify Simon not only that he'd be recorded to posterity as provoking his attack (although we understand, future people won't necessarily) but I think he'd also hate the idea of causing a controversy about an organisation that's ostensibly set up to help understand sealife.

@SHARK BYTES Of course he knew. They are there every day, and he frequently swam that route. He must have come close to their fishing hooks at times.

@Conway Twitter agree, he was just unlucky. You could swim That same stretch every day for the next 10 years and not even come close to being taken by a shark .

@Conway Twitter oh wow I never thought of it like that, but I guess it’s one way of making sense out of the provokes status, cheers

Seems to be some weird trend on RU-vid at the moment, people altering the contrast on pictures/videos and drawing in sharks that just aren’t there - it’s odd, and also nonsense 😂

but would that have happened without those other influences. from the explanation it seems whether an attack is considered provoked or unprovoked isn't about who's to blame in the situation but instead whether the shark's behaviour was influenced in some way that is atypical of shark behaviour. if the fisherman were using bait for example maybe that shark is closer to shore than it would otherwise be, maybe it's more likely to feed if it's already looking for food in the water if there are bait fish closer to sure if the la nina theory is accurate.

I did hear that the underwater topography was such (i.e. deep trenches or cliffs) that white sharks were able to stay deep, then rise up in a fast, jaws open attack. This swimmer was in the kind of area that white sharks will try attacking things to eat in this style, i.e. extremely dangerous. This shark attack report is not helpful if you're planning on your safety against being eaten, esp. in that exact location where the UK swimmer died horrifically. Is there a report out there that covers all attacks on people, and the surrounding circumstances if known, this would be a much more useful report for swimmers etc? Although your chances of being attacked by a shark are low, this is in general, and this is again, not helpful. If you jump in the water next to a random large great white, or indeed any other large potentially aggressive species, you can not use this statistic because your chances of attack hugely increase. This statistic is only useful when taking into account all those people that never, or rarely go into the water and don't have a past-time that involves heavy sea use. Lastly, aren't white shark numbers going up overall, due to more effective measures to protect marine habitats, e.g. hugely increased seal numbers in the US have allowed white shark numbers to get back to what they more naturally were?

This was a predation. In Ma. because of the seal increase we are having more Great White Sharks. Pool Time. 😂

I think it was a territorial event. Simon was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and the shark was curious. Maybe Simon was provoking the shark, and he had it coming.

@@evilqueenyiayia Chlorine is bad for your skin. You're literally swimming in chemicals. Swimming in the ocean causes my skin to look much better and brighter.

Let me put these in the nicest word I can muster . 1) Shark attacks on humans are incredibly rare like extremely rare 1 in 11.5 million to be exact . If sharks wanted to eat and kill us , (which would be a huge energy waster when most have to go weeks without eating) don’t you think those chances of being bit/attacked by a shark are higher ? Wouldn’t fatality rates also be higher , and to spare you from googling the chances of dying by a shark attack are 1 in 3.7 million . What happened to Simon was tragic but it isn’t the norm for a shark to do that . Quit using this man death as a way to peddle your “Sharks are viscous predators” mantra .

​@@adrianawilliams4810don't agree with you. There are more shark attacks each year. And they are not just biting you out of curiosity like a few years ago. They are eating you without leaving any trace. New reality...

Oh it was 100% a Bull Shark, but they won't say what it is because then people go looking for Bull Sharks to kill them, or whatever species is named. Bull Shark females will turn and bite ANYTHING in that water this time of the year through the summer time.

I don't think culling bullsharks in the Swan River!

Since the spate of bites in the Gold Coast canals in the early 2000's, I've kinda regarded bullsharks as the 'wankers' of the fish world. A title once reserved for psychotic, little damsel fish.

@@Breeanna73 asking for an edit

So sad. Canals all over are filling up.

I think in this case the problem is one of termonology, we hear "provoked" and we think "the guy asked for it" they say provoked and the ISAF means "this shark attack occured for reasons we know, as the proable result of human activity" and the line isn;t there to say "this guy deserved it, this guy didn't" but rather "ok, we';re pretty sure we know why this happened, but THIS event needs to be studied because.... we're not quite sure"

Yes. I agree that's the salient point. Where Simon was swimming was facing open ocean, too. When I mentioned this somewhere else someone local got annoyed and said it was the route they all take in this yearly swimming competition. But maybe the very large group swimming prevents attacks during the competition? I do know there's a very deep drop off there, though 😬

Wrong. The attack happened slightly to the left of where the fishos were casting their lines.

@@annabizaro-doo-dah It was not the swimming route

You are so right. There is always guys fishing in these areas. There would be attacks every day. I know the area well, ffs every where in Australia has people fishing. To say it was a provoked attack is actually raising my stress levels

I don't know about that the fishermen use plugs that splash and lures that wobble also smaller dead fish and crab's and sharks show interest in all of them I'd be interested in footage before the event and how an experienced swimmer who knows about sharks came to be in that place a lot happened before the initial attack which apparently just got missed by the camera and started at the second return of the shark . .

Not so much "the ongoing pandemic" as the govt response to the pandemic.

@@roguesquatch1 Depends on the country since some are still going through it but yea, government regulations are definitly a effect. Same with people being cautious too.

Absolutely, there was a notable dip in 2020, then a spike when the beaches reopened in 2021

Prob the economy too.

Hardly anyone goes swimming off Tupia Head/ Buchan point except ocean swimmers training

yes but if anglers are causing fish to flop around and causing eratic behaviors from those fish those pulses are what attract sharks. Which in turn provokes an attack.

The whole point is that he provoked the attack, unintentionally, by swimming in an area with a high risk of sharks feeding. Add that too the murky water conditions and his wetsuit he would have been indistinguishable from a seal to the shark.

@@Benji-jj2bg Please have a look at the footage of the incident taken by one of the anglers. They are fishing from the top of a rock point by the side of the mouth of a small stream. Look at the surf in which they are fishing. It is strong. Then think again. At that spot bait fish would struggle and get in trouble in any event. Predators can chase them against the rocks and then pick them off easily. Plus the surf perturbs their ability to sense an approaching predator with their lateral line system or visually. Perfect hunting grounds. This spot reeks of predatory fish of all kinds and other marine predators being attracted to it, with or without the presence of anglers. 😉

@@thomasstroh2845 even by your summary, it seems that their is an argument that the shark could have been provoked. Even if you think it's "unlikely".

@@Benji-jj2bg in the end, the sea is the sea creatures' home, not ours. Large, pelagic sharks are top predators in this world. If we enter the sea, we're in their territory. We are definitely not their natural prey, also likely not a prey they would prefer over anything else, but for a top predator we are still absolutely potential prey. So I have a very fundamental issue with the distinction between "provoked" vs. "unprovoked" shark attacks (not counting bites by sharks in captivity or when people at the beach try to handle a shark in the shallows). I honestly think, human presence in the sea as such is the provocation here and everything else follows from there. The fact that sharks are still not very interested in us is illustrated by the low number of total attacks whether you distinguish between provoked and unprovoked or not. To my knowledge, this is only done in the case of shark attacks. With all other top predators that occasionally (in many cases much more frequently than sharks) kill and sometimes consume humans an attack is an attack, be it by a tiger, a bear, a crocodile, etc. That whole approach of the ISAF makes no sense to me, it is utter nonsense. Simon Nellist swam in the ocean and got attacked and consumed by a Great White Shark that apparently was in feeding mode at that time (although even a territorial attack by a Great White Shark is likely to kill a person if immediate medical attention is not available). It is extremely painful and tragic for Simon's family and friends and also an extraordinarily rare event. End of story.

Yeah - it was sad to know he was also from near where I live here in England as well!

And he was an advocate for sharks and their conservation 😔

Good bloke, also very stupid !bloke . You don't go swimming in Australia people.

@@Aaron_Hanson yeah he advocated against shark nets saying they don’t work and kill sharks (which sounds like they work to me) and advocated against drum lines………. But the beach he got speared out of the water like a seal didn’t have either of those….

Not a breeding ground, but they are there frequently. They are often spotted by the Golfers, up above.

Sundance,,I grew up in south Florida and we all knew BullSharks attacked everytime.. -The fisherman never release them because of this. The insulting part is the lies they feed the people about them..

They have always been there.

How many attacks vs people in the water?

well it's their domain not ours. maybe humans shouldn't be so damn greedy causing over fishing.

@@nshorus5001 .. I completely agree and believe overfishing is the cause of sharks swimming closer to the shore. Cage divers and some boaties also antagonise the sharks. Still the Bull Shark is an animal to be feared.

Very interesting, thanks for sharing. I've heard about those beaches before but completely forgot, however I don't think I ever heard the total numbers, that's chockingly high, especially since I'd imagine the signs put off most sensible people apart from a few idiots, however those few idiots still rack up that high of a number. Crazy, I'd never for the life of me swim there

This was a FASCINATING comment. I'm going to look into this more!

Yeah I watched a documentary about Recife, it was very interesting but ended very abruptly. It is a hotpot, the capital name seems to float around between places depending on attacks. I would not surf Recife, yet I surf Nahoon? I think Recife is up there with Port St Johns and Renuion, scary place and dodgy water! Mostly Zambezi from what I can gather.

he was swimming and thats all isnt it? how is that provoked especially when i highly doubt he saw the shark ever before the attack.

The victim might not have done anything, but ISAF's explanation at least makes some sense. Even if the victim didn't provoke any nearby shark, circumstances surrounding him very well might have provoked the shark.

@@DominionSorcerer yea maybe. to me its a big gray area of what provocation means. thats what needs to be defined. likr if you say provoked say why.

@@colonelradec5956 It depends on how the shark is like. The shark could be like "hey I don't like you here leave".

@@DominionSorcerer The fishing may well have drawn the shark to the area, however, there was a decision made by the shark to attack based on nothing more than the victim's vulnerability. This was a predatory attack, no question, repeated goes at the victim followed by complete ingestion of the remains. The victim did not directly interact with the shark, nor did he initiate aggression so this for me, absolutely is a prime example of an unprovoked predatory attack, the kind of which happens more in Australia than anywhere else. Other places have more bites and more attacks, however Australia has a much higher rate of victims being consumed.

Nellist himself didn’t provoke the attack, the fishermen did. Since he was swimming near the fishers, the attack was considered provoked.

When you go into the ocean you're literally provoking marine life. This guy was swimming in an area that could have sharks and he was supposedly an expert diver. Don't tell me that he didn't know the risk of his activity.

That's stretching it, a lot. Simon was running a risk swimming where he did, imo.

In the video (which I cannot recommend watching) the area that Simon is swimming into is actively being dived by birds and directly beside where the guys filming the attack are fishing. Anyone who has ever fished the ocean knows to fish where the birds are diving because that's where fish are currently feeding (usually on bait fish). Would I personally say this was provoked? No. But is it extremely unwise to swim into a group of diving birds? yes. I feel sorry for this man who was just swimming and might have not even noticed the diving birds/fishermen and was killed for it. I can only hope he was not conscious and passed out from shock.

Apparently the competition takes that route. But that's a hundred or more swimmers at once. Crazy to swim over such a deep drop off.

@@annabizaro-doo-dah also crazy that they have a swimming competition in these waters...

@@annabizaro-doo-dah The swimming route is a circle in Malabar Bay, the next bay over

i was on the rocks, this is a usual swim track, ive swam it in mornings for 20 years, so dont know why you are bullshitting online, he was just unlucky

@@jump171 and you're still playing with your luck

It unfortunately doesn't matter whether or not it is the victim of a shark attack that provoked the shark, if another person provokes a shark and the shark bites someone else, it's still a provoked attack. ISAF might have been a little too hasty with saying this attack is a provoked attack, but I can understand their logic.

Then it's provoked if he went swimming in an area where the white shark would be anyway, especially adding in the fish being caught, poor visibility, dark wet suit, and rocky shore, he looked like a seal. That's what Gavin from ISAF explained in his letter.

@@kayleeserna4278 With that logic every shark attack would be provoked, Most people that get attacked by a shark know they are in the area and decide to swim anyway.

Hmm I would love to ask Gavin from ISAF how not to look like a Seal when surfing or swimming? Dress up like a scary bear?

@@johnreynolds8800 it's a ridiculous hypothesis. An animal that evolved millions of years cannot tell the difference between a swimming human and a swimming seal? An easy but poor in nutrition meal is what we are to sharks.

💯%

Not really. If you decide to swim in an area where there's a lot of people fishing, sharks will associate boats with food because they are used to snatching the fish that those fishermen have on their line. If you jump into the water especially from a boat the shark will associate it with food because of its experience with the fishing boats. Some people even purposefully lure sharks to their boat to take a look and bait the shark to think it's going to get some food but instead they won't actually give the shark the fish. So if you jump into that water it is provoked, same with surfing, your making yourself look like a seal to a shark and it will attack, spearfishing obviously also provokes because of blood in the water and swimmers being attacked are taken as unprovoked but honestly 95% of those bites are actually provoked. Because those people spot the shark and they try to swim away from the shark and the shark starts attacking, that's again a provoked attack in my eyes, if you don't act like a prey the shark won't attack you but these swimmers freak out thinking they can outswim a shark or something when it's pretty much like outrunning a cheetah on land and they end up getting bitten, sometimes dead if it's a tiger shark, because when a tiger shark attacks it probably won't stop until you're dead. If they had the information about every attack on a swimmer and they knew how exactly it happened, then those "unprovoked" attacks would suddenly turn into provoked, if you saw the real number of the shark attacks that were truly unprovoked the number would probably hit 0 or close to it each year. If you don't provoke the attack, it won't happen. It's still a wild animal so sometimes an unprovoked attack might happen but that would be very rare.

humans have been evolved to swim and fish in the water since we became a species. swimming boating and diving are key elements for many island and coastal peoples source of food and survival. the idea we are ocean invaders is overly simple. we are just a species that moves between land and water as an ecological niche. we have to study water apex predators to avoid being killed by them when doing water activities which are natural for us. personally i think it's stupid to simplify our relationship with oceans to just "human stupidity". we are all animals here. as long as we aren't over-hunting sharks it's natural to learn more about them and how to avoid becoming meals for them. unprovoked simply means the shark attack is food or territory motivated. rather than a person getting killed by an animal they were actively trying to interact with. we need to know if an animal sees us as a food source or not or if they attack out of territorial aggression or not for good public safety. some animal species tend to ignore humans and fatal encounters are more accidental or a human initiated encounter or an anomaly ie due to rabies. again it's natural for humans to study these behaviors and know how to live and do activities in the wild and in nature, where we ALSO belong, without being eaten if possible

You couldn't have said it better my friend.... Simon knew the risk's he was taking... No way in hell would I swim there.

@KY greenskeeper Me either. The water literally looked "sharkey."

@@lydiaparker1778 ( sharky is putting it lightly) .. no way in hell would I swim there...

@KY greenskeeper Yeah that is why I said me either.

What is a safe area?

I think that they do count those as provoked also. My idea of provoked is quite different, I don't write reports though.

None of then should be considered provoked, what they’re saying is if sharks may have been drawn in closer to humans it’s provoked, but the sharks still chose to eat/bite the people so it’s manipulative.

Sounded like a pretty grim one John!

@@SHARKBYTES Know one thing, me personally, you wouldn't find me in ANY Australian waters swimming ! Not even for a million $'s. Be it "netted" beach, river, estuary etc. Knowing my luck I'd be that one in a million "Wrong place, Wrong time" unfortunate souls ! How long's the list of potential predators in that area ? Especially up Northern Darwin region, sharks, salty crocs, sea snakes, jellyfish......... Amazing that there isn't a WHOLE dossier file, rammed full of attacks !

Don't swim at night or dawn

That was the exact conclusion I came to re: the attack being listed as provoked being "disgusting and shameful". I think it is disrespectful to the late Mr. Nellist, his family and to the fishermen in question to suggest that either party provoked that shark in attacking Mr. Nellist that day. That is NOT suggesting that the shark is to blame. The shark did what a shark does. Mr. Nellist was, unfortunately, in the wrong place at the wrong time, however it is truly ridiculous to believe that Mr. Nellist or the fishermen were in that area hoping, either intentionall or unintentionally to provoke an attack.

Not suggesting the shark is to blame? Attacking a human and going back for seconds hmm that’s an interesting thing to say!

@@johnreynolds8800 What I mean by my wording is that the shark was acting as if it were a human being acting on malicious intent. The shark did what the shark does best. It hunted and ate in order to survive. Therefore, it cannot really be blamed for doing what it naturally does. My reasoning for not putting blame on the shark is to put a squib into petty notions from people's calls to cull sharks etc just because a shark did what it naturally does. Culling will do absolutely nothing in the longer term. So, with respect, I stick to my reasoning. The shark is not to blame, but neither is Simon Nellist nor the fishermen.

If Simon had seen the shark and then swam there anyway would you say it was un provoked or provoked ?

@@ravenfeader That is an interesting question to be fair and, in such a scenario, it would change a lot of things ie. Mr. Nellest's motivations for deciding to swim when he knew a GW shark was present and whether he would swim the same way (would he continue doing a recreational swim or would he be going out to swim explicitly to see the shark etc.) I, for one, would not believe someone would willingly go for a recreational swim if they knew that in the stretch of water they were swimming there was a large GW shark present. According to the ISAF's definition of a provoked attack, its states; "Provoked bites occur when a human initiates interaction with a shark in some way. These include instances when people are bitten after harassing or trying to touch sharks." After listing other examples, it states "In these encounters, the shark is responding with defensive behaviour". In such a scenario, because Mr. Nellist had gone out to swim knowing there was a shark in the water, you could argue that he went in and "initiated" an attack by going into the water with that pre-knowledge. Yet would Mr. Nellist have tried initiating any further contact with the animal if he was going into the water to swim in the same stretch of water he knows the shark is in? For me personally, I would consider most cases of attacks where the person is in the water with a shark, and is in the water deliberately because there are sharks there and is, therefore interacting with them, whether it be passive (observing) or active (touching etc) then they have, in effect, provoked any attack that could occur. If the person is swimming in the area and has not idea that a shark is there (even if the waters are known to have sharks) and does not see a shark before going into the water, such as Mr. Nellist that day, then those attacks are wholly unprovoked. It's the same philosophy I'd pertain to the case of Sam Kellett. He was spearfishing, which by the ISAF's standards, would mean he provoked an attack, yet to my logic, he did not go into that water to get swallowed whole by a shark, therefore I'd consider his attack as unprovoked too.

It’s an interesting one that’s definitely going to ruffle a lot of feathers

It’s definitely political, no way that’s classified as provoked. Most surfers will always have at least one fisherman on the beach while surfing. Does this mean no shark is accountable if there is any fisherman on the beach? How convenient

How can they say Simons attack was provoked? That means everyone who goes for a swim is provoking an attack...

One could argue that swimming in open deep water where these sharks are known to live and mimicking a regular prey animal’s movements did place this person in line for a predation attack. Provoked? Taking a big chance for sure.

@@philipberry6477 one also could argue an animal with millions of years of evolution under it’s belt doesn’t eat humans for any other reason than eating. Humans don’t look like seals when they swim anymore than they look like an octopus. So no we don’t “mimick” their natural prey.

Jeez you must be fun to go for a pint with. Sound words though.

You swam off Buchan point?

@@alexisc4922 little bay yes

They did not say he provoked him, they said the fisherman did.@@julieslowgrove3524

I knew it would end up like that when a day after the attack, with zero knowledge, "activists" called for Nellist being responsible. They just can't even think that a predator would kill a human for food. It's against their agenda with a fairy tale view on sharks. It's all about propaganda

probably 50-100 yards. I am told that the pulses from fish moving eratically is what attracts sharks to an area. So if fisherman are catching fish over an extended period of time, theres a good chance they will attract a hungry shark there with just the fish's eratic swimming behavior as they are bieng reeled in.

We still don't know. They are hypocrites because nearly all unprovoked attacks in florida are near a location where fishermen are. By their logic all those attacks would be provoked.

@@unqualifiedtoast700 That's kinda what I was thinking/wondering. I mean, in some places, fishermen are EVERYWHERE.

and there’s a third category as well, the attacks that may have either been provoked or unprovoked… so 2022 was 163 shark bites/attacks.

it is classed as provoked because of the fisherman, not Simon. a provoked attack doesn't have to be by the individual themselves, it can be people around provoking from fishing, chumming, boats chumming the waters nearby etc. Simon swam extremely close to where people were fishing.

I agree

Exactly what’s happening. A blatant narrative they’re pressing

Hmm. Reminds me of a certain breed of dog.

@@walkawaycat431 those dogs are social, raised by humans, and if not. Provoked. Isn’t nearly the same.

Regardless, they are of massive importance to the eco system... your comment makes it seem as if numbers should be culled, which they really don't. I'm not a "shark person", I think they're fascinating but they scare the hell out of me, but anyone swimming in locations where there are known species take a risk, whether it is the time they swim, conditions etc all increase that risk... They have evolved to predate on specific animals, they test bite many times, resulting in horrific injuries, that doesn't mean they're hunting. Again, these things do happen and sometimes people are targeted, if you go for a walk on the african savanna, expect to be targeted by something eventually...

'Fault' implies mistake or responsibility. The shark didn't make a mistake as it ate him, which is clearly what it intended to do. The shark also can't take responsibility as that's an alien concept for a shark. The shark wasn't at fault, it just did what it does.

Just remember these guys fishing were filming each other, not Simon, he was in the background. What happened to Simon seems accidental footage at first, I think we should take into account the absolute shock and horror that unfolded before their eyes. Had that footage (which I have not seen, nor want to) wasn't captured nobody would ever know what happened to Simon. They sent off the call for help in the hope of a possible rescue. There's a very deep trench where he swam and it's known that sharks love those trenches.

@@ourcorrectopinions6824 Maybe, or maybe the OP used those words because they meant them? Unfortunately there's an awful lot of people who demonstrate a 'the shark is at fault mindset', it did something bad it, it hurt a human, let's go hunt it, let's cull the population etc. etc. I was just trying to address the glaring errors of that mindset, if that was the case 🙂👍(typo edit)

@@ourcorrectopinions6824 Yes, for SN's loved ones to see, or even just know, that parts of his horrific final moments were available online must have been horrible for them. That the footage was out there though is, on balance, for the greater good. Just as certain shark species shouldn't be persecuted for, very rarely, causing harm to humans by demonstrating behaviour which is natural to those sharks. It's not right that people should be fed information which is, at the very least, misguided. The facts are that certain shark species will sometimes bite people and a very small number of species will sometimes eat people. Given the armoury of senses available to these species, it makes no sense to say that the majority of interactions culminating in harm to humans are cases of mistaken identity. Or that the shark didn't want to bite or consume that individual, when the facts suggest that the opposite is true. That rarely a human is harmed as a result of mistaken identity, but rather, in the majority of instances, the shark did want to bite or consume that individual. Those two small pieces of footage documenting part of the attack on SN should leave people in no doubt that sharks are to be respected. That they will see us as a threat, an intruder into their territory or, very rarely, prey and they will act accordingly, in ways which are natural to them. Given the ISAF's classification of the SN attack as provoked, literally pretty much any human activity can result in an interaction which is designated as provoked. Their position being that the sharks behaviour was altered, from that which is natural to it, to something which was unnatural, by the presence of human activity. This would be logical only if they removed the option to classify a human interaction as unprovoked. Therefore, either their logic is flawed or there is another reason why they have stated that, in this instance, the attack was provoked. Maybe there is an agenda of which we are not aware? The footage of the SN attack being out there enables people to draw their own conclusions based on logic, rather than having to rely on simply believing what they are being told by people with either questionable logic or motives or maybe even both. Perhaps that footage being out there might even save someone's life? Yes it's distressing to watch, for anyone with an ounce of compassion in their heart, but knowledge should surely be prioritised over ignorance and truth should be preferred to lies. Those two small pieces of video impart knowledge of what can happen and expose the truth of such interactions, in about as blunt and brutal a way as possible👍

So you're suggesting that a human being who's natural environment is not the ocean getting eaten by an animal in its natural environment is somehow at fault ? Get a grip on life mate, if you stuck your hand in a bees nest what could happen ? If you go swimming in the ocean with apex predators what could happen ? The shark was doing what it naturally does. You wouldn't blame a croc for some muppet swimming in the Fitzroy river that got attacked so why the shark.

If it was mistaken identity the shark wouldn't have eaten him. Mistaken identity means the shark made a mistake and rejected the target after realising it wasn't what it expected it to be. This shark didn't care. No mistake made.

As a shark scientist I wouldn’t be able to sit here and comfortably say this incident was mistaken identity. (I do believe mistaken identity happens, but not this situation).

@@SHARKBYTES ​ @Lyndon CMP No, no, I agree with you entirely. Just because the experts said it, doesn't make it so. They may very well be shark experts, but they may be studying the lung as a cancer treatment - who knows 😏 The news treating us all like embeciles doesn't help with any credibility, either. Cheers mate! @Shark bytes. Appreciate the reply. It was cool seeing you appear on Sharks Happen the other day, too! Hal's got a neat channel. He also has some funny _life_ stories he can have a giggle at while sharing, and he's funny when he gets fired up. 😂 *edit: Bugger, I meant to add, I hope the appearance bumped up your sub numbers as well. 😉

no mojo Cheers back. 👍

The thrashing of prey fish getting reeled in would also draw their attention I’d think

@@axemeanything1599 absolutely. Basically everything that the act of fishing entails, bait or not, would surely be a lure in for sharks. I do understand why ISAF are classing it as provoked - although as they said, certainly not consciously.

@@axemeanything1599 by that logic swimming is provocation.

@@angelmartin7310 humans don’t normally thrash around like a wounded fish to swim.

@@angelmartin7310 Hooking fish draws blood from the fish. Hopefully you cannot say the same about just swimming in the ocean.

And why is that?

That's exactly what I thought. Looks like a shelf off there. prime hunting territory. Stupid imho

Nellist hugged the coast when he swam. The fishos cast further out than Nellist was. They would have needed to stop reeling/refrain from casting to let him through.

If that was the Sharks Territory and Simon was Intruding then that Could of Trigger the attack as well as the Heavy Splashes being caused by the his swimming. Either way it was Truly a Tragic Incident

Absolutely, but the question would also be - were the fish even biting that day? Only the fishers who were there will know for sure

@@SHARKBYTES Oh, that is for sure the question. I'm not too sure how willing the few of those that saw the predation event up close are going to be to talk about that day again, but they might if questioned again.

@@SHARKBYTES Why didn't you show us the vid?🍿

@@DJones476 I’m sure you can find it online somewhere if you’d like to watch

@@SHARKBYTES I was just messing about, Kris. I've already seen it, as I'm sure you have. Most of us here have repeatedly watched, and even enjoyed (at least on some level) the now infamous footage. _Homo sapiens_ hasn't changed one bit since the days of the Roman Colosseum.

It allows them to downplay the number of unprovoked attacks. It's a foolish policy, since it just prompts people to regard them as a biased and unreliable source.

@@greghenrikson952 100%

Exactly. If he had done laps in the protected Little Bay Cove, we wouldn't be talking about him now.

💯

My mate who surfs out that way said a week before he saw some huge sharks out there and wont go out for a while

Spearfisherman around the Malabar, Maroubra and Little Bay area, couldn't agree more. Bait fish are everywhere around there and it's DEEP and DARK. I would never swim around there.

everyone does this , i have swam that area same route for 20 years no incident so all the people saying it was bound to happen, you dont realise that thousands of people do this without incident

It’s the one fatal attack we saw. You think all the ones we didn’t see weren’t also gruesome? White shark is the third fastest animal in the ocean and also one of the biggest. That combination of size and speed doesn’t go well for whatever they attack

@@pontius2000 true but not every victim gets bitten in half by the torso. Then the shark comes back finishes off the rest that’s pretty gruesome. Has it happened before in other Great White attacks it has. However there are many times a Great White will attack the thigh leg arm etc take one bite swim off realize I don’t like this and swim off. This attack was different this shark wasn’t just coming for one bite it devoured all of Simon Nellist and May Simon rip very tragic!

@@stevenciesiel777 Great Whites will move in take one bite and then move away circling waiting for their victim to bleed out and then they will move back in.

That guy is the laziest, most uninspired creator. He literally downloads articles from web resources and reads them verbatim. It blows my mind how little a person needs to do to draw in an audience on RU-vid.

@@wesmartino64 Even if that is true. He has a nice voice and I'm not normally going to look that up myself, so it's nice to hear it conveyed in an interesting way.

The map showed that most of the unprovoked shark attacks in America were on the East Coast.

Dream on, that's an asinine and idiotic statement

@@ThejoshrandallHow so? Seems pretty solid to me. Don’t go swimming alone in heavy fishing area with low visibility that is frequented by sharks. What’s not to get?

I have no faith it in and I believe that many go unreported. I saw a video on a guys very small YT channel where he was showing data, newspaper clippings and files his dead grandfather had collected for 50 years and he said he would likely have to throw them away because no one was interested in documenting them and he didn't know what else to do with them. I wish I had saved that video.

Same here, but I think it is unfortunately.

Hopefully you'll continue to enjoy the comment section on a range of different videos we have here on the channel!

Okay now I find that one hard to believe .

Here you go Adam: www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/shark-attacks/yearly-worldwide-summary/ There’s also a press release somewhere on that page as well that you can read too

@@SHARKBYTES Okay, so I've had a read of the link you sent (thanks again for it!) and after consideration, I feel that the ISAF have really got it wrong with Mr. Nellest's attack, and that it considering their own definitions of what they consider a provoked attack. Paraphrasing what the ISAF define as a "provoked attack", they say that it will occur when "a human initiates interaction with a shark in some way." In this case, going swimming anywhere or performing any activity where there are sharks known to be in the area could be considered initiating activity. It goes on to say that "these include instances where people are bitten after harassing or trying to touch sharks", two factors I would consider provoking a shark. The person in question has, theoretically, poked the bear, and now the bear has given a swipe in return. They add the shark is acting in "defensive behaviour". I would argue that the shark is also acting in p****d off behaviour too. They add that provoking behaviour includes spearfishing, hand feeding, removing hooks and removing from fishing nets, adding that "all these events involve food". I would imagine that the email they sent to you regarding the activity of the fishermen would be considered here. This, however, is where my problem lies with their definition of classing Mr. Nellist's attack as provoked. They continue: "The sharks may bite a person by mistake during the frenzy for food, and habitually fed wildlife may become aggressive towards humans if food is not available." My issue is with the use of "by mistake". Mr. Nellist's attack was no mistake. That shark knew what it was doing. That shark was hunting. That shark was in predation mode. Had that shark made a "mistake", it would have let Nellist go after the first bite and not consumed him. (EDIT: There is a video here [DISCLAIMER: GRAPHIC CONTENT] of a GW shark attacking and predating on an Elephant Seal in its natural habitat ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-wxvE6CP1AJQ.html The nature of the attack and the behaviour of the shark is almost identical to how the shark behaved around Nellist, suggesting to me that Nellist's attack was an "unprovoked" predation, as if the shark were hunting Nellist like it would do a seal.) I think, as well, I call into question the idea that either Mr. Nellist or the fishermen in question provoked the shark, whether intentionally or not. The fishermen did not know that Mr. Nellist would be swimming through their area, neither could it be assumed that Mr. Nellist would have known that there were fishermen fishing from that rock when he began swimming further up the coast. We do not even know whether Mr. Nellist has swam amongst fishermen before this incident in other areas. Has it been recorded whether or not Mr. Nellist has swam that portion of the coat before? Has anybody else swam that portion of the coast before, or even since, either solo or in groups? Another problem I have with this is the factor of Nellist's death. It was the first shark attack, indeed the first fatal attack in that area in 60+ years (?). As such, it can be safe to assume that neither Mr. Nellist nor the fishermen could have imagined in a thousand years that there would have been an attack that day at that moment. I also want to make mention to an actual provoked attack, which involved rather similar circumstances. That was the Manhattan Pier Beach attack in 2014, where a group of fishermen had hooked a GW shark and intentionally reeled it in towards some swimmers to see what would happen. Naturally, the shark bit one of the swimmers, but did not try to predate or consume them. This attack fills the criteria of a provoked attack as outlined by the ISAF. The fishermen in question knew they had a shark, or that a shark was in the area; they saw the swimmers approach; they lured the shark to the swimmers; the shark bit one of the swimmers. (EDIT: here is the video in question of the provoked attack [DISCLAIMER DISTRESSING CONTENT] which shows the behaviour of the fishermen in question, a complete distinction to the behaviour of the fishermen at Little Bay. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ESzXLQhMMlo.html The shark here bit the person in question before being unhooked and swam away. It did not return to predate on the same individual afterwards) None of the fishermen at Little Bay knew the shark was there. None of them appeared to have anything on their lines at the time when the video was shot. Few, if any, of them must have been aware that Mr. Nellist was in the area at the time. None of them would have known that a shark was in the area, despite people later saying that the area was "sharky". To me, and this does sound unfortunate, but it seems as if the ISAF have deliberately labelled the Nellist attack as a provoked attack to skew the idea that a shark would predate on a human being without some form of justification. It stinks of bad, indeed, false science for the sake of bias. Mr. Nellist's attack was, as per the ISAF's definition of an unprovoked attack, an "incident in which a bite on a live human occurs in the shark's natural habitat." Backing this, from ISAF themselves; "These events include; mistaken identity hit and run during low visibility conditions, investigation, and on infrequent occasions predation." This final sentence sums up Mr. Nellist's attack to a tee. He was attacked in "sharky" waters, possibly in low visibility water, and the case may well have been "mistaken identity" (although I disagree with such ideas). In any case, I feel that this sums up, in my eyes anyway, that Mr. Nellist's attack was unprovoked, and to suggest that either he or the fishermen in question provoked his attack and, therefore, they are culpable, is a terrible thing to suggest. Again, thanks for the link Kristian! Ver informative video as always and I love that you take an unbiased view on things like this. It is so refreshing to see someone who takes the middle ground and considers both sides of the argument before making a decision.

A couple of additional points I'd like to make upon some more reflecting. I also believe that listing Mr. Nellist's attack as "provoked" rather than "unprovoked" is also very careless and also dangerous of ISAF to do given the circumstances of his attack. By stating Mr. Nellist's attack was provoked, it is to suggest that given any other situation, a person could go swimming along the same length of coast and not trigger an attack by a shark - a length of coast mind which numerous people have commented in various forums, news articles, and even on this video as a place which is "crazy to swim in" and "looks very sharky". Just now I have watched some videos of people diving around the Little Bay area. Mind they are not swimming in the spot where Mr. Nellist was attacked and are in the bay itself, it does however certainly look like an area where a GW shark would frequent. The drop offs were not featured in these vids but I would not hesitate that that spot is a place GW sharks hunt. For ISAF to consider the attack "provoked", it is therefore suggesting that should I go swimming in the same stretch, perhaps choosing a day when there are no fishermen operating in the area, that I should be safe from an attack. My question is; would I choose to go swimming in that spot? Would anybody consider swimming in that spot? My second point is regards to the press release. I find it quite revealing and also disrespectful that the ISAF did not once mention Mr. Nellist's attack in their press release. Considering that Mr. Nellist's attack was a global news story and was the first predation of a person ever captured on film, you would imagine that the ISAF would have made some mention of Mr. Nellist's attack and would have given some kind of public justification as to why they listed it as "provoked attack". I, for one, since having seen Mr. Nellist's horrific attack last year, have never managed to get it out of my head. I don't think there has been a month the whole of last year where I have not once stopped to consider it. It was a terrible tragedy which I feel that ISAF have just decided to gloss over. Those are my thoughts anyway. Thanks again Kristian!

I really appreciate all the info & details VERY MUCH, & completely agree!!!! …Personally, I also think that it is TERRIBLE that they are implying the FISHERMEN are responsible for Simon’s attack being classified as ‘provoked’--!!!! WTF??!! I, too, have seen the video, & it is 100% NOT provoked. Like you mentioned, & thank you for doing so, the REAL example of a provoked attack is the one where the fishermen knowingly & EAGERLY bring a hooked White shark into contact with swimmers, where it of course attacks someone… THIS video is a clear cut case OF PROVOKED attack. Simon’s video is 100% a clear cut case OF •UN• provoked attack- I mean, there are literally 2 videos to look at & compare…I mean, SERIOUSLY??? It is RIDICULOUS to say Simon’s case WAS provoked, when it is literally on video tape!!! To me, it is disgusting for them to imply the fishermen provoked the shark- (clearly Simon did not provoke it.) It stinks of all kinds of shady, sleazy, dishonest corruption on their end & seems like there is some sort of legal reasoning for them to classify it this way; maybe to DENY a financial payout (life insurance, etc?), or to set up some sleazy lawsuit against someone (wrongful death lawsuit against one of them?), or to maybe ultimately sue a company for responsibility -(like maybe sue the company that manufactured their fishing poles or lures, etc.?)- it is super revolting to think about, but I wouldn’t be surprised if someone there is secretly putting pieces like this together to catch that almighty DOLLAR.

@@turtlejeepjen314 Thank you for your kind response :) If I was to speculate a reason why the ISAF chose to list is as "provoked" rather than "unprovoked", my personal belief is the following: I feel that the ISAF fears that listing Nellist's death as unprovoked will somehow foster up the "Jaws" image of the GW shark which shark scientists have been desperate to try and erase for years, most certainly since around the mid 90s onwards. Since that time you will hear countless of times in documentaries from both the narrator and the scientists say those off quoted remarks: "Sharks aren't interested in humans"; "Sharks won't hunt people"; "A shark attack on a person is extremely rare" etc. There is, of course, an element of truth to these soundbites. Shark attacks are rare and I would argue that, 9 times out of 10, a shark will not hunt a person if it encounters them in the water. There is plenty of research to prove this, and videos as well, including Malibu Artist's drone footage of sharks in the water. This, however, does not mean that an attack on a person will not occur, neither that a shark would not predate on a human if it wanted to. When Simon Nellist's attack occurred, and the fact that its brutality was captured on camera, I think certain groups were very worried about what image this could create in the eyes of the general public surrounding sharks, particularly the GW shark. I can understand their reasoning, as there are news segments out there of people who wanted a culling of sharks after the Nellist attack, something which I am wholly opposed to as it will solve nothing. In turn, however, for ISAD to just ignore the facts and even their own criteria of what an "unprovoked attack" and deciding to list Nellist's attack as "provoked" is a dangerous precedent in my eyes. Not only was it emotional rather than scientific, but it also just keeps projecting this image of sharks like the GW shark being "misunderstood creatures" who would not attack humans. I would argue that this is a dangerous precedent to set as it will lead to some people who will mistakenly believe this and will wind up either getting injured or killed as a result. My mind goes straight to three people with regards to this foolish mindset; that diver in that glass cage who was almost hit by that Great White; Erich Ritter and the bull sharks (who went on to blame his spotter, then the cameraman and also Nigel Marvin for the attack, not himself) and Ocean Ramsey, who is, in my personal belief, playing with fire. One day someone of this ilk is going to realise that sharks are not some kind of animal that can be "tamed" for the cameras. They are animals. The same goes for that RU-vidr who owns, swims with and kisses alligators. It is foolish and dangerous behaviour. It is the reason why I respect Kristian's and support his videos and work as he does not appear to hold, in my opinion anyway, any bias viewpoint. He takes his interest and looks at it objectively. Like in this video, he has taken a step back and allowed us all to comment our thoughts and opinions and I believe, no doubt, will be reading each and every one and getting his own, informed opinion over the matter. Thanks again for the comment and reply